Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Lol no there is no overlap. Tech trans people do diligence and make comments to any agreements that impact IP for large M&A deals. They also run their own licensing, software and IP-driven deals. Great exit opitions to tech companies.

I started out as a corporate attorney at a regional biglaw firm and then transitioned into technology transactions at a biglaw firm.

My practice as a corporate attorney was mostly M&A work (middle market 10-100 MM deals) with some equity financing for startups. Honestly, at the lower levels, I think technology transaction is much more interesting. You get a lot more drafting experience as a young associate as compared to what you would do in corporate.

My practice consists of a whole variety of things, from M&A due diligence on the IP/technology/privacy aspect of the deal, to reviewing a software license agreements, commenting on an IT services agreements, to working on a small outsourcing deal. The practice is heavily based on drafting and the creation of "issues lists." In some firms, technology transactions and privacy are in the same group due to the fact that there are so many privacy issues related to technology agreements. I also assist on privacy issues as well such as reviewing privacy policies, security addendum, data transfer and breach related issues.

It is probably the easiest way to go in-house. In-house jobs are mostly compliance and contracts drafting positions. The unfortunate part is that "corporate/M&A doesn't train you well for inhouse positions. Technology transactions is as close as you can get to going inhouse at a law firm. I've gotten many recruiter calls about going in-house. If you look at goinhouse.com, you will realize that the majority of the jobs are technology transactions/privacy based positions.

With that said, if you look at the AGCs or GCs of big companies, you will often notice that they have a corporate/M&A background. This leads me to believe that while tech trans may be easy to go inhouse, the high end jobs are often reserved for M&A/corporate attorneys.

Anonymous User wrote: This leads me to believe that while tech trans may be easy to go inhouse, the high end jobs are often reserved for M&A/corporate attorneys.

I did an in house gig during law school at a tech company and this was how it seemed to shake out. Lower level attorneys were doing a TON of drafting and negotiation with customers/vendors. Tech trans people probably have a much easier time finding open in house positions like that compared to a regular M&A guy (in tech companies). Our GC basically did very little drafting. He was doing a lot of board/shareholder management and more large scale negotiations/planning with our execufives than on any customer or vendor stuff.

Obviously people in tech trans may have felt like they have had different experiences than mine. I was not in SF/SV/NYC so those larger tech centers may have different practices.

Generally speaking, it doens't include venture capital work. Usually that work is done in "corporate."

In terms of Ip due diligence, it really depends. If it is extremely technical like patents, we will likely get a hard science IP guy to review the due diligence documents. From my experience, I usually review trademarks, copyrights other filings along with software licenses, acquisition of IP, litigation involving IP, material software license agreements and privacy related matters.

The work can vary a lot, but at the lower levels, it would involve the review of due diligence items like material contracts, employment law agreements, IP assignment agreements... etc. The work also involves the review and drafting of disclosure schedules, and other corporate matters like the creation of a closing checklist, amending the bylaws to give certain board seats to certain people, payoff of loans, creation of different classes of stock, capitalization table, voting rights agreement ... etc.

Anonymous User wrote:Is there a difference if most of the work of the tech trans department is generated by independent outsourcing/licensing work rather than support on m&a deals?

Some firms have a separate group that does outsourcing/licensing vs M&A support. It really depends on firm. Other firms have a separate group for outsourcing vs licensing and M&A support.

Generally speaking, I think licensing and working on middle size tech transaction deals is probably the best for your career. You have excellent inhouse opportunities and you actually get an opportunity to work on some drafting.

Im a junior legal counsel for a fintech comp. DD, license agreement, IT vendor, business vendor,service, M&A, IP stuff ( if shit gets too technical, we look for of counsel), JDA, and VC in startups. Thats pretty much all. when business is slow, it can get boring at the office.

Anonymous User wrote:Im a junior legal counsel for a fintech comp. DD, license agreement, IT vendor, business vendor,service, M&A, IP stuff ( if shit gets too technical, we look for of counsel), JDA, and VC in startups. Thats pretty much all. when business is slow, it can get boring at the office.

did you start out in-house, or did you exit from a law firm? and if the latter, what were you doing before?

Anonymous User wrote:anyone have thoughts on going from general corporate (w/ EE/CS background) to tech trans?more or less preferable than going from IP lit to tech trans?

I did tech trans in biglaw for 8 years, recently made the move in-house. I've seen people transition into tech trans both from IP lit and from general corporate, but I don't know that I ever saw anyone do it after like their second year in big law (not sure how senior you are). I think going from general corporate is probably preferable since some of the basic contract stuff is applicable to both. To be honest, I'm not sure that EE/CS background is going to matter much. My background was EE and I honestly don't think a single thing I ever learned in college was ever useful to my practice.

Anonymous User wrote:anyone have thoughts on going from general corporate (w/ EE/CS background) to tech trans?more or less preferable than going from IP lit to tech trans?

I did tech trans in biglaw for 8 years, recently made the move in-house. I've seen people transition into tech trans both from IP lit and from general corporate, but I don't know that I ever saw anyone do it after like their second year in big law (not sure how senior you are). I think going from general corporate is probably preferable since some of the basic contract stuff is applicable to both. To be honest, I'm not sure that EE/CS background is going to matter much. My background was EE and I honestly don't think a single thing I ever learned in college was ever useful to my practice.

Anonymous User wrote:Im a junior legal counsel for a fintech comp. DD, license agreement, IT vendor, business vendor,service, M&A, IP stuff ( if shit gets too technical, we look for of counsel), JDA, and VC in startups. Thats pretty much all. when business is slow, it can get boring at the office.

did you start out in-house, or did you exit from a law firm? and if the latter, what were you doing before?

Anonymous User wrote:anyone have thoughts on going from general corporate (w/ EE/CS background) to tech trans?more or less preferable than going from IP lit to tech trans?

I did tech trans in biglaw for 8 years, recently made the move in-house. I've seen people transition into tech trans both from IP lit and from general corporate, but I don't know that I ever saw anyone do it after like their second year in big law (not sure how senior you are). I think going from general corporate is probably preferable since some of the basic contract stuff is applicable to both. To be honest, I'm not sure that EE/CS background is going to matter much. My background was EE and I honestly don't think a single thing I ever learned in college was ever useful to my practice.

good to know. thanks for the insight!

I assume you're not in BL yet, right? Bc you're either already corporate or IP lit, right? There wouldn't be that part of the question if you were, I don't think. The reason that I say that is that if you're choosing between the two with a view of transferring later I'd go corporate. But if that's the case, you should realize it may be hard to transition from either. Tech trans, IMO, truly is more about contracts than it is IP. It's a bit of a misnomer, again IMO. I say that as a corporate associate in SV who works with tech trans people about every week but also realizing diff places have diff approaches to tech trans.

I still am getting offers to transition to tech trans from corporate a few years into BL. Who knows what would happen if I tried, I never have. And most offers aren't for BL shops but those come up unsolicited from time to time tpp. I think Gunderson was looking for junior-ish corp associates to switch recently I think.